Political Trials And What Can They Tell Us About The Relationship Essay

Political Trials And What Can They reassure Us About The Relationship Between Law And Politics - Essay ExampleSometimes, there are no policy-making officials used in these trials. In such cases, the fact that these trials address regimenal agendas becomes the differentiating cistron (Aegis 2009, p.57). Political trials either fall in any of the four categories. This paper addresses the description of the four categories. virtually of these trials fall in the drumbeater trial category. The partisan category is the most common of the four. The law defines the partisan trial as a trial in which criminal legal proceedings get sanction by a government in power with the hope of crushing any arising opposition. This helps to reinforce and consolidate this governments power (Aristotle 2006, p.177). The officials chosen to try these cases are normally affiliates of the government. In addition, they tend to donation the same ideologies with the government in question. Therefore, from these two characteristics defining these trials, it becomes rather obvious that political trials are unjust, antiblack and biased (Stephen 2008, p. 176). Political trials are also common in totalitarian forms of governments, ruled by leadership who are dictators. These forms of government require docility from its subjects and unquestionable co-operation for it to function. Therefore, any form of disobedience noted among the subjects be it static or active, leads to setting up of courts by the government comprising of political officials. The government always emerges victorious in these trials because of the biased nature of the legal proceedings (Perry 1990, p.190). Karl Marx, a prominent, sociologist advances in his conflict theory that conflict results from the vox populi class need to hold on to their power and rule over their subordinates (Christenson 1999, p.69). Marxs theory helps to explicate why a government in power sets up biased, criminal legal proceedings in the attempt to squash opposition from the subordinates. These trials instill fear through the consequences that result from the political officials ruling. A historical perspective provides examples of partisan trials. Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Joseph Stalin among other dictators sanctioned many partisan trials during their reign. They used them to control their subjects (Grigsby 2011, p.77). Those found shamed received harsh, inhumane treatment. They served as examples to other subjects who wanted to oppose the existing government. Prosecution of religious and political rebels driven by their conscience and moral obligations to the cause they fight for and believe in is another political trial. Unlike partisan trials, these trials main characteristic includes the trying of defendants with impartial court officials. These trails are also shrewdly sensitive and can either reflect negatively or positively on the government (Laughland 2008, p.256). For example, if the government famil iarizes the court proceedings, these rebels are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the laws they the government is accusing them of breaking, therefore, attracting a public spectacle. On the other hand, the government cannot look the other way and avoid dealing with the unlawful rebels. This is because the governments subjects will perceive it as weak and incapable of proper leadership. Therefore, the government understands that the rebels driving force lies in their beliefs. It also considers the fact that they have many supporters making them hugely influential. Therefore, they pose a significant riskiness to the governments. Thus, the use of impartial court officials proves to be the best strategy the government can use. This is because it prevents future, negative public opinion which might work against